The standoff is stark: a President determined to send the National Guard into an American city, and a state government fighting fiercely to keep them out. This constitutional battle over the limits of federal power and state sovereignty has just taken a critical turn, as a federal appeals court weighs in on the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon.
In a divided decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court’s order. The ruling allows the President, for now, to proceed with sending federalized troops into Portland against the express wishes of the city and state – a move that further frays the already thin line separating military power from domestic law enforcement.
Why Did a Lower Court Block the Deployment?
The appeals court’s temporary green light overrides a powerful ruling issued just weeks ago by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut. Ironically, Judge Immergut was appointed by President Trump during his first term. After reviewing the evidence, she concluded that the President had likely acted unlawfully.
Judge Immergut found that the President’s justification for the deployment – citing protests against his immigration policies – did not meet the high legal standard required to federalize the National Guard for domestic use. She ruled that there was no evidence of an “invasion” or “rebellion” in Portland, calling the President’s description of the city as “war-ravaged” simply “untethered to the facts.” Her order temporarily blocked the deployment, citing probable violations of federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act.
What Power Does the President Claim?
The entire legal battle hinges on the interpretation of a specific federal law – Section 12406 of Title 10. This statute allows the President to call state National Guard units into federal service under specific, extreme circumstances: “to repel an invasion,” “suppress a rebellion,” or when states are unable “to execute the Laws of the United States.”
This is a critical constitutional power, designed as a last resort for genuine national emergencies. The core legal question is whether peaceful, if disruptive, protests against a federal policy can be legally defined as an “insurrection” or an inability to “execute the laws” that justifies this extraordinary presidential action.
Is This Just About Portland?
The ruling has implications far beyond Oregon. Portland is just the latest battleground in a broader administration strategy to deploy federalized troops into Democratic-led cities. Similar deployments have occurred in Los Angeles and Washington D.C., with Chicago potentially next, often justified by crime rates or protests.
This pattern represents a profound challenge to American federalism. The National Guard is primarily a state-based militia force under the command of state governors, a structure rooted in the 10th Amendment and designed to prevent the federal government from having a standing army policing American streets. The President’s actions seek to bypass this constitutional design.
Where Does the Supreme Court Come In?
The 9th Circuit’s ruling creates further legal chaos. Federal courts are now deeply split on the legality of these deployments. While this same 9th Circuit backed the President’s deployment in California, the 7th Circuit blocked a similar move in Chicago. This “circuit split” makes it almost certain that the ultimate constitutional question will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
The appeals court’s decision is a temporary victory for the White House, but it is not the final word. The underlying legal battle continues, and the fundamental constitutional question remains unanswered: Under what circumstances can a President deploy the American military against the will of a state government on American soil? The answer will define the balance of power between Washington and the states for generations to come.